Retrieve a paginated list of managers linked to an employer account by employer ID, with optional raw JSON output.
List managers for an employer account. Requires employer_id and HH_ACCESS_TOKEN.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| raw | No | Return the full raw hh.ru JSON instead of the compact summary. | |
| page | No | Page number (0-based) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page | |
| employer_id | Yes | Employer ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a prerequisite (employer_id and HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) but does not disclose the return type (list), pagination behavior, or any side effects. For a read operation, it could be safe, but the description does not confirm that.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks structure and does not front-load key differentiators. It is short but not well-rounded for agent decision-making.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, but the description is incomplete for effective selection. It does not explain the difference from get_employer_manager, does not mention that it returns a list, and provides no context on when to use it among many sibling tools. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes the description the only source of context, which is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond mentioning employer_id and the auth token, which are already implied by the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'List managers for an employer account.' The action is clear, and the resource is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool get_employer_manager (singular), which likely fetches a single manager, so the agent might not know which to use without additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_employer_manager or other employer-related tools. The description only states a requirement (employer_id and HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) but does not mention any distinguishing conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.